Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe news that the Iraqi government has banned Blackwater USA, the notorious mercenary firm, from operating in the country reveals another of the great fictions promoted by the Bush crowd in the course of this catastrophic war. The notion that Iraq is a sovereign nation in control of its own destiny.
The Bush Administration announced this myth several years ago after Iraqis adopted a Constitution and started electing a government. It was shrewd political propaganda--a reassuring sign of progress--but the claim was not true then or now. Major media and American political leaders, nevertheless, embraced the happy talk and pretended it was real.
(The Nation's own Jeremy Scahill has done pathbreaking reporting on Blackwater: See Bush's Shadow Army and Mercenary Jackpot, among others. Scahill also testified before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense in May about the impact of private military contractors on the conduct of the war.)
The banning of Blackwater makes it impossible to ignore the fact that Iraq is not in charge of Iraq. We are. Iraq's Interior Ministry announced that authorities have cancelled Blackwater's licence to operate in the country and intend to prosecute the company for a shooting that killed eight Iraqis.
The New York Times account added this disclaimer in the second paragraph:
"But under the rules that govern private security contractors here, the Iraqis do not have the legal authority to do so."
Who says? The occupying Americans. The Coalition Provisional Authority issued a "law" when they supposedly handed over sovereignty to Iraq--Order No. 17--that gave Blackwater and other US contractors immunity from Iraqi law. How clever of the American pro-consul.
The basic reality in wars of occupation--see the history of colonialism--is that a country can never regain true sovereignty so long as the occupying army remains on the scene, able to impose its will by force of arms. That of course is Iraq's situation, no matter what the White House says or Americans wish to believe. Iraq will not become a sovereign nation until the US troops depart. Maybe this why polls show 76 percent of Iraqis want the US out.
The end game for colonialist regimes nearly always started with the imperial power allowing the people to "elect" their own government. But these were typically puppet governments, composed of carefully screened and supposedly safe political figures. More to the point, they remained under the control of the occupying army. People in the Middle East or Africa or Asia understand this distinction because liberation is still fresh in their national history.
So now the US puppet government in Iraq is talking back to its mentor--claiming to have powers the US has not given it. The Americans may not tolerate such uppity behavior. Prosecute Americans for crimes against Iraqi citizens? How dare you. Blackwater could become an interesting problem for the American overseers to resolve. Maybe Washington will decide that Bagdad is not yet ready for sovereignty, after all.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
blackwater--spanish for sewage.
i guess they were at home after katrina
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 10:56am
Bush's use of the term "ally" to describe Iraq in his recent address is more mythmaking in this vein.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/18/2007 @ 11:06am
"But under the rules that govern private security contractors here, the Iraqis do not have the legal authority to do so."
well, i can imagine this could be a rallying point for the iraqi parliament to come together. nothing like a common enemy to rally the people.
let's hope they make rosa parks proud
"How clever of the American 'pro-consul'."
i prefer "viceroy"
Maybe this why polls show 76 percent of Iraqis want the US out.
wudda they know?
because liberation is still fresh in their national history.
and about to get fresher.
Maybe Washington will decide that Bagdad is not yet ready for sovereignty, after all.
try as she might, lady macbeth could never wash away the stains.
HOORAY FOR IRAQ! WHEN THE ABUSED STANDS UP TO THE BULLY, HE USUALLY STARTS WITH HIS WING MAN.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 11:09am
GREIDER: The basic reality in wars of occupation--see the history of colonialism--is that a country can never regain true sovereignty so long as the occupying army remains on the scene, able to impose its will by force of arms.
By this line of `wisdom', why didn't Old Europe go along with our Iraq adventure? And where we have the most troops, Germany, it was among the most virulently Anti-War, what gives, Mr. Greider?
How about South Korea? Who gave them the `Right' to appease North Korea?
Guess Iraq must just be a fast learner!
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2007 @ 11:11am
Of course Happy conveniently fails to mention that neither Germany nor SK engage in armed resistence against the "occupiers." Does Happy ever question whether these countries are even comparable? Oh! these metaphorical minds that marvelously stew the sociological and cultural differences between countries until they're all alike. Yummie, Yummie how ideologically tasty!
Posted by markws at 09/18/2007 @ 11:38am
I posted this on KVH's article, but thought it was worth repeating here (with corrections) since it directly invovles this topic.
Katrina, I read the article and have also read previous articles from multiple sources concerning Blackwater Inc. Maybe you or someone else can enlighten us as to why a private company is doing what the U.S. military should be doing.
Also, if there is to be some kind of settlement for the families of the people killed by Blackwater, would it not be Blackwater's responsibility to settle it, not the U.S. government? Since when is Ms. Rice Blackwater's damage control person. I thought she was supposed to work for us tax payers.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/18/2007 @ 11:44am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2007 @ 11:50am
it is strangely colonial in flavor. instead of an "east india company" with its own private army, we have the "haliburton" kraken with its outsourced merc army...ready to stay should we draw down?
hmmm...outsource failed policy to "the army company", which relocates its headquarters to the region, bring some troops back home...sounds like randian demigod plotting to me. and you know...
if the saudis are willing to foot the bill...
let the bastards get chewed up and spit out of the black hole of baghdad, just like our men and women in gubbament service...
it started out as an evil lie and just keeps getting worse...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 11:51am
filibusterers in the time honored tradition of william walker. modern day viking raiders or free enterprise colonist/conquerors, gun toting murderers operating in a lawless hell with no consequences for murder...
the perfect henchmen for amoral randian demigods.
and is it not comforting to think that these very same folks are, as a result of the stretching-to-the-breaking-point of our glorious ary of the republic, being used here at home in the case of natural emergencies?
fear terrorists? sure, but which ones? the towelheaded islamacist autoexploding freaks or the posse of gun toting thugs serving our randian overlords?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 11:58am
Posted by HAPPY 09/18/2007 @ 11:11am
Way to twist words and ignore facts moron.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/18/2007 @ 12:16pm
HAPPY:
None of what you said made one lick of sense. Everyone here is now stupider for having read it.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 12:22pm
GREIDER: The basic reality in wars of occupation--see the history of colonialism--is that a country can never regain true sovereignty so long as the occupying army remains on the scene, able to impose its will by force of arms.
By this line of `wisdom', why didn't Old Europe go along with our Iraq adventure?
Posted by HAPPY 09/18/2007 @ 11:11am
Old Europe is not under American occupation, you imbecile.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/18/2007 @ 12:27pm
By this line of `wisdom', why didn't Old Europe go along with our Iraq adventure? HAPPYDICK
Because....... they were SMARTER than bushboy?
They KNEW what an idiot he is, and weren't going to follow him on his little adventure?
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/18/2007 @ 12:32pm
Notice how the leftist kook stalinists on this site and elsewhere always seem to have a traitorous orgasm every time they hear news of ANYTHING that goes bad for the U.S......Yet good news for the USA is bad news for them....
How do you LIBZ sleep at night knowing inside what anti-american assholes you and your ilk really are....
Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 12:22pm
'scuse the interruption
go here:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/allcomments?pid=232978&rpg=2
and scroll on down. there's a present there for you.
and now back to blackwater
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:00pm
Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm
please refrain from insults. if you have a point to make, use facts. that is what mature people do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 1:02pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 1:05pm
LVLIB...how many combat casualties did we take in Germany and Japan AFTER they surrendered?
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:10pm
"please refrain from insults. if you have a point to make, use facts. that is what mature people do."
How about addressing the points nitwit instead of acting like a stalinist daddy figure
Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:11pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 1:02pm
FROST, ol' buddy, you really need to learn judicious (non-ZERO, non-JOHANNES) use of the Ignore feature.
Guys like FRANKSHITS and JONES (the totally antagonistic, or just plain bigots) aren't worth arguing with...so blank 'em out.
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:12pm
Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm | ignore this person
Irrational hatred! Nothing constructive, just an asshole being himself.
"Ignore this person"? Why, yes, thank you. Click. Goodbye.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/18/2007 @ 1:22pm
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 09/18/2007 @ 1:22pm |
poor frankshits/aludra/libsux...for a while there a part of the 51% grand eternal mainstream...now part of the 20 - 45% (depending on how we define it) sidechannel...nothing but an eddy...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 1:26pm
Frankshitz-You never have a point.You are a child who enjoys name calling.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 1:29pm
Funny how you LIBZ never have the Stalinist inclination to reach for the ignore buttom when filth and spew come out of the holes such as Dr. decibles, Frankgrits, etc.
Liberalism truly is the philosophy of the stupid
Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:35pm
Frankshitz-People on the left have confronted others on the left who do too much name calling.Improve on your reading comprehension skills.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 1:43pm
examples?????
Ive been around this dump for a website and have never seen an example of it
More lies from Libz
Posted by Frankshits at 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm
LvLiberty-the reason the war is still going on is because Bush didn't listen to the military from the beginning and for no other reason.He has always been a screw up and will always be a screw up.You guys should have waited for the good son,Jeb.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 1:45pm
Frankshitz-Learn to read.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 1:46pm
I'M, for gosh's sakes, if you're going to try to talk to that idiot, atleast keep it down to ONE post an hour!
He's really not worth you spamming to him.
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:55pm
Mask-I have plans for the next hour and would not be able to do that so had to get it in now.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 1:58pm
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:12pm
jones is long gone.
you're right here goes frankenpoo.
"click"
ah that's better
thanks, dude!
btw here's the post i ignorrorized him with:
Funny how you LIBZ never have the Stalinist inclination to reach for the ignore buttom when filth and spew come out of the holes such as Dr. decibles, Frankgrits, etc.
Liberalism truly is the philosophy of the stupid
Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 1:35pm | ignore this person
how ironic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:06pm
Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm
i keep asking you to define "liberalism" so we can debate it. you define it as "stupid" and run away.
i've been very nice to you. i've invite you in, offered you vegan scones and tofu burgers, and attempted to discuss crap with you.
but you just vomit forth your prepackaged coulter spew and run away.
are you a "bot"?
please type the following exactly as you see it...
1BraInDeAdmoroN4iGgY
just testing to see if you are for real...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/18/2007 @ 2:10pm
"well, i can imagine this could be a rallying point for the iraqi parliament to come together. nothing like a common enemy to rally the people."
"let's hope they make rosa parks proud."
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 11:09am
Uh, Frosty, perhaps a better comparison would have been to Chechneya and their struggle with Russia.
Now, I do understand you were trying to make an analogy between Rosa Park's refusal to give up her seat on the bus and the Iraqi government standing up to Blackwater, however, one point should be made...the Iraqis own their country, we African-Americans live in a country we don't own.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 2:15pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/18/2007 @ 2:10pm
ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:16pm
the Iraqis own their country, we African-Americans live in a country we don't own.
Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 2:15pm
hey there!
the iraqis don't own squat right now.
i used ms. parks (pbuh) because she was a shining light of non-violence.
perhaps gandhi (pbuh) would be a little more analogous
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:20pm
Frankshitz-Quoting Ann Coulter to back up your views makes as much sense as quoting Hitler.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 2:23pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/18/2007 @ 2:23pm
sir, peace is just a click away. i disagree with shutting up those of differing opinions. that's just way too dangerous.
but if the person has NO OPINIONS
*click*
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:32pm
FrostyZoom-FrankShitz doesn't affect my sense of peace in the slightest.In fact,quite the opposite.I get a good laugh from his posts.Humor is always good even if it's wrapped in ignorance.It's a proven fact that laughing leads to a longer and healthier life.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 2:39pm
FRANKSHITS sounds like Michael Savage. Anyone agree?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 2:53pm
"It's a proven fact that laughing leads to a longer and healthier life."
Posted by I'M NOBODY 09/18/2007 @ 2:39pm
Not to mention happy hour.... ;)
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 2:04pm
Wait a minute, so YOU can bring up post-war Germany and Japan and try to analogize their occupation time to Iraq...and that's "releveant"....
but if I merely ASK how many combat casualties we suffered AFTER Germany and Japan surrendered...suddenly you don't LIKE that analogy anymore and it's "not relevant"?!?!?
I see........
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:17pm
MASK:
Cogent point. Your stock is rising.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 3:22pm
Democrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.
Ah, the tu quoque fallacy.
Democrats yearn for America to be defeated on the battlefield and oppose any use of the military.
Nonsense. Clinton had more major deployments of U.S. forces than Reagan and Bush combined. If Democrats wanted us to be defeated, they would be supporting Bush's Iraq policy, because that's where we are headed.
It's been the same naysaying from these people since before we even invaded Iraq -- despite the fact that their representatives in Congress voted in favor of that war.
The "naysayers" criticized the Dems' vote on the war resolution, so this claim conflates two different groups of people. Oh, and by the way, in the case of Iraq the naysayers have been proven right beyond all doubt. We never should have gone in--it was one of the worst blunders in the entire history of this nation.
Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," warned Americans in the Aug. 30, 2002, Los Angeles Times of 60,000 to 100,000 dead American troops if we invaded Iraq -- comparing an Iraq war to Vietnam and a Russian battle in Chechnya. He said Iraqis would fight the Americans "tenaciously" and raised the prospect of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction against our troops, an attack on Israel "and possibly in the United States."
His projections are not representative of what most liberals believed and his projections were based on a faulty assumption: that Saddam had WMDs. Who did he share this assumption with? Not the liberals, but the conservatives.
On Sept. 14, 2002, The New York Times' Frank Rich warned of another al-Qaida attack in the U.S. if we invaded Iraq, noting that since "major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough."
Al Qaeda attacks were attempted but thwarted--by law enforcement and intelligence services. The soldiers in Iraq had nothing to do with it. Also, Bush and Co. also have warned many times that Al Qaeda would try and attack us here.
This week makes it six years since a major al-Qaida attack. I guess we weren't distracted. But it looks like al-Qaida has been.
There is no evidence that a single Al Qaeda cell left the United States for Iraq, and plenty of evidence that new cells have formed. Also, even if we assume against all reason that this is right and that the war in Iraq has not diverted our resources away from the struggle against terrorism, the above claim assumes an unstated moral premise: that it is okay to go invade another country and have our war there and kill civilians there so that people here might not get killed. Highly dubious.
Weeks before the invasion, in March 2003, the Times' Nicholas Kristof warned in a couple of columns that if we invaded Iraq, "the Turks, Kurds, Iraqis and Americans will all end up fighting over the oil fields of Kirkuk or Mosul."
And they still might. Take a look at where the oilfields actually are and superimpose the claims the different groups have on the lands of Iraq. There's trouble brewing.
He said: "The world has turned its back on the Kurds more times than I can count, and there are signs that we're planning to betray them again."
This is true.
He announced that "the United States is perceived as the world's newest Libya."
We are perceived by the world as having absolutely no credibility and no moral compass--um, just like Libya at the time.
The day after we invaded, Kristof cited a Muslim scholar for the proposition that if Iraqis felt defeated, they would embrace Islamic fundamentalism.
The Muslim scholar may be right. Iraq has been a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
We took Baghdad in about 17 days flat with amazingly few casualties. There were no al-Qaida attacks in America, no attacks on Israel, no invasion by Turkey, no attacks on our troops with chemical weapons, no ayatollahs running Iraq. We didn't turn our back on the Kurds. There were certainly not 100,000 dead American troops.
But it was during this time that we made our greatest errors (aside from the invasion itself of course). The invasion by Turkey did not happen, true (but neither did the "they will greet us as liberators" so both sides made erroneous predictions). The chemical weapons attacks did not happen because there were no chemical weapons. The ayatollahs actually have had quite a hand in how events have unfolded in Iraq (and may have caused the war in the first place by purposefully slipping bad intel to us). See above point for the "100,000 dead" claim.
But liberals soon began raising yet more pointless quibbles. For most of 2003, they said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Saddam Hussein. Then we captured Saddam, and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean complained that "the capture of Saddam has not made America safer." (On the other hand, Howard Dean's failure to be elected president definitely made America safer.)
Next, liberals said the war was a failure because we hadn't captured Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Then we killed al-Zarqawi and a half-dozen of his aides in an air raid. Then they said the war was a failure because ... you get the picture.
Liberals said this, liberals said that. Some of these claims were made by some liberals (and conservatives) through the years. But it is important not to obscure the main point of the liberals, which has proven true: the war was a failure because we had no justification to go in and terrible planning of the occupation. All the back and forth about specific events and captures is overshadowed by this one undeniable fact.
The Democrats' current talking point is that "there can be no military solution in Iraq without a political solution." But back when we were imposing a political solution, Democrats' talking point was that there could be no political solution without a military solution.
Please provide a quotation for this one.
They said the first Iraqi election, scheduled for January 2005, wouldn't happen because there was no "security."
Some said this. Some conservatives said this. It was a great worry at the time.
Noted Middle East peace and security expert Jimmy Carter told NBC's "Today" show in September 2004 that he was confident the elections would not take place. "I personally do not believe they're going to be ready for the election in January ... because there's no security there," he said.
He was mistaken. Kinda like Bush and Cheney have been about virtually everything going on in Iraq. The difference? Bush and Cheney go before the American people and lie about it.
At the first presidential debate in September 2004, Sen. John Kerry ☼ used his closing statement to criticize the scheduled Iraqi elections saying: "They can't have an election right now. The president's not getting the job done."
Five months before the election very many felt that it would be difficult to have elections. Everyone was worried (even in the Bush administration).
In October 2004, Nicholas Lemann wrote in The New Yorker that "it may not be safe enough there for the scheduled elections to be held in January."
He was mistaken.
Days before the first election in Iraq in January 2005, The New York Times began an article on the election this way:
"Hejaz Hazim, a computer engineer who could not find a job in computers and now cleans clothes, slammed his iron into a dress shirt the other day and let off a burst of steam about the coming election. "'This election is bogus,' Mr. Hazim said. 'There is no drinking water in this city. There is no security. Why should I vote?'"
If there's a more artful articulation of the time-honored linkage between drinking water and voting, I have yet to hear it.
And then, as scheduled, in January 2005, millions of citizens in a country that has never had a free election risked their lives to cast ballots in a free democratic election. They've voted twice more since then.
Again, many many people were skeptical regarding elections; among that many were some (not all) liberals. I don't see much of a point here, but the quotation keeps bringing it up so I guess I'll keep shooting it down.
Now our forces are killing lots of al-Qaida jihadists, preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and giving democracy in Iraq a chance -- and Democrats say we are "losing" this war.
The war was a failure in the struggle against terrorism the day we invaded. It was the greatest gift ever given to Al Qaeda.
I think that's a direct quote from their leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, but it may have been the Osama bin Laden tape released this week. I always get those two confused.
Some people might think that trying to divide America is un-American, and this last statement is an obvious attempt to destroy our common bond as Americans.
OK, they knew what Petraeus was going to say. But we knew what the Democrats were going to say. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid.
When Mr Reid said that we are losing, he meant that as a bad thing. He wanted a change in policy so that we would not continue down that path. Bush wants to continue down that path, and it's Reid that's the traitor???
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/18/2007 @ 3:28pm
Posted by FRANKSHITS 09/18/2007 @ 12:58pm
I sleep quite well, thank you.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/18/2007 @ 3:33pm
The banning of Blackwater makes it impossible to ignore the fact that Iraq is not in charge of Iraq. We are. Iraq's Interior Ministry announced that authorities have cancelled Blackwater's licence to operate in the country and intend to prosecute the company for a shooting that killed eight Iraqis.
The New York Times account added this disclaimer in the second paragraph:
"But under the rules that govern private security contractors here, the Iraqis do not have the legal authority to do so."
Who says? The occupying Americans. The Coalition Provisional Authority issued a "law" when they supposedly handed over sovereignty to Iraq--Order No. 17--that gave Blackwater and other US contractors immunity from Iraqi law. How clever of the American pro-consul.
That's the point. All this attempting to make excuses by pointing to post WWII Germany and Japan is the usual muddying the water tactics of those that are wrong and too weak to admit it. You want historic analogies? Look at South Vietnam. (I'm still waiting for Maliki to get shot in an APC.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:35pm
MY GOD IF THIS IS NOT STALIN IN DRAG WHAT IS???????
Posted by FRANKSHITZ
Guilianni.
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/18/2007 @ 3:37pm
if I merely ASK how many combat casualties we suffered AFTER Germany and Japan surrendered......
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 3:17pm
MASK, maybe I've been waiting on Bernanke to undo some of Greenspan exuberance, and he did today w/a 1/2 point cut.....but who or what party we have been battling in Iraq has/have "surrendered"? Obviously you think so, please source the day the Armistic(s) was/were signed .....short of that, a fatwa by OBL `surrendering' would also suffice! Thanks in advance!
Posted by Happy at 09/18/2007 @ 3:54pm
FrankShitz-It's quite telling that you have a preference between Rudy in a pantsuit and Hillary in whatever it is that Hillary wears.Personally,I could not have made that statement and can't believe that you actually gave the matter some thought.Obviously,you would have had to imagine each in those outfits and I couldn't have done that.I'd rather have my head explode than imagine such a thing and then have to choose between the two.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/18/2007 @ 4:02pm
"Nonsense. Clinton had more major deployments of U.S. forces than Reagan and Bush combined."
Posted by BLUESPARK 09/18/2007 @ 3:28pm
You're kidding right? The only major deployments Clinton had was Somalia (30K in 1994) and Bosnia (58K in 1995). And, you can't count Operation Desert Fox as a major offensive because it was a joint operation between the US and US using airstrikes to target Iraqi installations (it was also a PR disaster). The rest of the small deployments were for humanitarian issues. Clinton, like Jimmy Carter was not a very good CIC.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 4:10pm
FRANKSHITZ:
So does that mean we should fight against Bush and his daddy? Cuz, you know, we supported the so-called IslamoNazis when Bush Sr. was both CIA chief, Veep, and Prez.
Thoughts?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:10pm
Oh yeah, it's a great idea to have a private security firm in Iraq that is run by a right wing Christian weirdo! I've no doubt this Erik Prince is tres mal and is murdering innocent civilians with impunity. Prince and Blackwater should be held incommunicado in Den Hague at the ICC. They should then be put on trial and lined up against a wall and shot. I hereby volunteer for the firing squad.
Posted by lawbird at 09/18/2007 @ 4:24pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 3:22pm
Careful, JORCH...I might seem "less smart" to you over on the "Hillary Care" thread!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/18/2007 @ 3:54pm
So, HAPPY, "victory" is only going to be all the insurgents (or even bin Laden) surrendering?
And you don't want to leave Iraq until "victory", do you????
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:27pm
MASK:
I've been reading that too. I simply was making the point that even you can sometimes make a brilliant point.
But I think you already know I am not a fan of Hillary... or her husband, for that matter.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:28pm
Clinton, like Jimmy Carter was not a very good CIC.----Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 4:10pm
And you base that on the fact that Clinton only had two major deployments and lost no troops?
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:28pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:28pm
Yeah, I somehow figured your assessment of my brilliance would be short-lived.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:29pm
ACOOK:
I hate that I am defending Clinton... but here goes.
Doesn't it make more sense that a CIC who participates in less war is generally better than one who participates in more? I hope you aren't trying to say that Bush, because he has had more war in his administration, has been better than practically any CIC in th past.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:31pm
MASK:
I do what I can for mankind... and womankind, for that matter.
:D
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:31pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:31pm
That's cool...by the way, that reminded me of my "Hippie Bumper Sticker of the Week" sighting...
"Humankind...Let's Be Both!"
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:51pm
"I hate that I am defending Clinton... but here goes."
"Doesn't it make more sense that a CIC who participates in less war is generally better than one who participates in more? I hope you aren't trying to say that Bush, because he has had more war in his administration, has been better than practically any CIC in th past."
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:31pm
Oh, absolutely not. It would make more sense for the CIC to know how to utilize our military efficiently and effectively.
Because a CIC has participated in "less" conflicts doesn't neccessarily translate into less violence for the world just as participating in "more" conflicts doesn't neccessarily mean the world will want to continue down that path.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 4:57pm
MASK:
Ok, that made me laugh. Damned hippies....
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:57pm
ACOOK:
Unfortunately, all too often, violence begets violence, are rarely does violence actually ever make things better. WWII is the one arguable exception.
And again, if you are trying to say that Bush has been in any way superior to any president in our history as CIC, I would recommend rereading your history books.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 4:59pm
"And you base that on the fact that Clinton only had two major deployments and lost no troops?"
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 4:28pm
Actually, he lost troops in Somalia.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 5:06pm
"And again, if you are trying to say that Bush has been in any way superior to any president in our history as CIC, I would recommend rereading your history books."
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 4:59pm
I'm not implying anything Jorcheim. You know as well as I do that they don't make 'em like Teddy (not Kennedy), FDR, Lincoln or Washington anymore.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 5:09pm
ACOOK:
Point taken...and I would agree with you on that. It's one of those sadly poignant realities of American politics.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:17pm
Far be it from me to divert attention away from the sniping at FRANKSHITZinhispants, but does the fact that our government has hired itself a mercenary army bother anyone just a teensy, weensy bit?
Does it make you uncomfortable that they have been allowed to operate on US soil, ostensibly in a humanitarian effort, it is true. Nonetheless, what amounts to a private army, answerable to none, has been granted authority over the governed without so much as a 'by your leave.'
Not to sound all Rese-Plunger, but this strikes me as being just a mite too dangerous a precedent. What if Shrub and the Clot decide that they 'have' to invoke this year's executive order, making Chimpy el presidente for life? A little harder to uproot from 1600 PA Ave when he's got the Moyocks watching his back.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/18/2007 @ 5:21pm
Posted by FRANKSHITZ 09/18/2007 @ 5:23pm
No, I hear the sound of your unborne feces squishing relentlessly against your furry little 'tain't with every gyration of your no load, rotund arse as it rests poised on the seatpost of your momma's bicycle.
That's what I hear.
Besides, nimrod, fear of black helicopters is strictly a right wingnut, Tim McVeigh sort of paranoid delusion.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/18/2007 @ 5:36pm
SKELETONMAN:
If you really would like to be made uncomfortable, do a google search of Project Echelon, or the Iran Contra Hearings and martial law.
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:41pm
SKELETONMAN:
It's not Big Brother you have to worry about... it's Little Brother...
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:43pm
FRANKSHITZ:
What part of "I hated Bill Clinton almost as much as I hate Bush" didn't you get?
Posted by jorcheim at 09/18/2007 @ 5:45pm
Posted by JORCHEIM 09/18/2007 @ 5:45pm
Re: Frankshitz -
I guess we know what happened to at least one of the army of winged monkeys after the melting of the wicked witch of the west.
Posted by skeletonman at 09/18/2007 @ 5:51pm
Posted this morning on Dogs, figured it'd work here.
I heard yesterday on NPR that there's as many as 180,000 mercs and 'civilian contractors' types in addition to 170,000 US troops. That's 350,000(-- same as 1965-66 increasing levels in Vietnam, BTW). Add to that the 10-13,000 'coalition troops'. Then add to that the Iraqi troops and police: +/- 360,000 military and 300,000 police per Wiki(-- again similar 1965-66 SVN levels).
Isn't that like 1.1 millilion on one side of the Iraq fight. Yeah I know even this number has people switching sides back and forth or on both sides, and that's if there is indeed a particular side.
Yep, then you have the supposed 'other' side. The local (70,000 Sunni,...) and foriegn (800-2000) insurgents, sects/militias( ), crime gangs ( ), 2-5% AQiI,... Anybody got the 'number' for the 'enemy', being flooted around? I read tons about number of attacks, little about estimated enemy troop numbers as 'the' opposition... Think maybe it's just the total population of Iraq?
So what's the big difference? Vietnamese Civil War, internal phase, 1960-65 civilians killed in the war numbered an estimated 160,000--- Iraqi civilians killed via US occupation estimated at 600,000 per MIT, 655,000 per Lancet, {Burnham said the confidence interval of the data put the range of the number of deaths between 400,000 and 900,000. He suggested the media should not get too focused on the 655,000 number.} And I've seen one current estimate close to 800,000 Iraqi civilians killed.
So what if we finally figure out who the enemy is we're fighting in Iraq and it turns out to be us?
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat2.htm
http://tinyurl.com/2bdbaf
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2007 @ 5:52pm
Actually, he lost troops in Somalia.----Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 5:06pm
Then by a factor of 100, you think Bush is an EVEN WORSE CIC...uh, right?
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 7:34pm
"Then by a factor of 100, you think Bush is an EVEN WORSE CIC...uh, right?"
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 7:34pm
No. This country has experienced 43 Presidents so far. And right now, only a hand few can be called "great" CICs. President Bush may not be the best, but he's not the worst either. You gotta take into consideration that the American people have a love/hate relationship with the leaders of this great nation, no matter what your political strips. We've always hated every sitting president until they either left or died in office. Unfortunately, only 4 presidents were truly despided - Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and JFK.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 8:21pm
I meant to say "despised".... :)
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 8:23pm
Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 8:21pm
Okay, ACOOK....are you paying attention to not only what I'M saying, but what YOU'RE saying?
You said Clinton was one of the worst CIC...I asked why...you said "Actually, he lost troops in Somalia."----Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 5:06pm
Well, we lost 19 troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. We have lost some 3700+ in Iraq.
So...using YOUR OWN rationale, Bush would have to be 195X worse than Clinton.
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 9:18pm
BTW, just because Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy were KILLED, does not mean they were generally despised by the majority of the public....NOR does it mean that other Presidents were not despised WORSE and the Secret Service got lucky.
Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 9:19pm
"You said Clinton was one of the worst CIC...I asked why...you said "Actually, he lost troops in Somalia."----Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 5:06pm
You don't play well with others, do you?..I did not say Clinton was one of the worst. I said he was not a good CIC.
"Well, we lost 19 troops in the Battle of Mogadishu. We have lost some 3700+ in Iraq."
"So...using YOUR OWN rationale, Bush would have to be 195X worse than Clinton."
This isn't my rational, it's yours.
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 9:18pm
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 11:02pm
"BTW, just because Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy were KILLED, does not mean they were generally despised by the majority of the public....NOR does it mean that other Presidents were not despised WORSE and the Secret Service got lucky."
Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 9:19pm
Well, the assassins felt what they were doing was for the majority.
Posted by ACook at 09/18/2007 @ 11:34pm
So my previous point being that because of our US troop protective gear technology and medical advancements having lowered the mortality rates KIA, rather than effectively increasing the efficiency of war targeting of our enemy and thus lowering the number of civilian death-- the opposite has occurred and we have increased the civilian death rate by an estimated 500%. One must question the intentionality of that fact when considering the military advancements that would indicate the direct opposite 'should be' the case.
Same 'should be' true of post Katrina disaster relief.
Same 'should be' true of pre-9/11 intel preventative measures.
What if the disasterous hsuB/cHeney idealogy and incompetence, are used simply as cover for their intentional criminality.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/19/2007 @ 12:41am
The only major deployments Clinton had was Somalia (30K in 1994) and Bosnia (58K in 1995).
It comes down to how one defines "major deployment," doesn't it? Should I go with your gut, or with the definition of those who know, by whose count Clinton had 25 major deployments, to Reagan's 8.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/19/2007 @ 07:49am
Well, the assassins felt what they were doing was for the majority.
Well, finally we have an explanation for all that public outcry in each case to let the assassin go free.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/19/2007 @ 07:51am
President Bush may not be the best, but he's not the worst either.
What an endorsement! Which end of the spectrum is he closer to?
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/19/2007 @ 07:53am
Posted by ACOOK 09/18/2007 @ 11:02pm
ACOOK, what did you say was your reason for calling Clinton "not a good CIC"?....."He lost troops in Somalia", right?
Okay....so if Clinton lost 19, and Bush has lost 3700+ (and more to come).
By YOUR OWN WORDS...who's a worse CIC?
Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 08:48am